(1.) APPELLANTS -Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath and Neelu Lunga challenge judgment dated 16.03.2011 in Sessions Case No.211/1/10 arising out of FIR No.15/2010 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar by which they were held guilty for committing offences under Section 394/308/34 IPC. Neelu Lunga was further convicted under Section 411 IPC. Vide order dated 22.03.2011, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for six months each under Section 308/34 IPC; RI for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo SI for six months each under Section 394/34 IPC. Neelu Lunga was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.
(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellants were that on 17.01.2010 at about 01.45 P.M. at house No.B-5/101, Paschim Vihar, they robbed Neeta Pathak and deprived of her mobile phone make Sony Ericsson, lady purse containing debit card, license and some other papers and money. In the process of committing robbery, they also caused injuries to her with a wooden log of a cot. On 08.01.2010, Neelu Lunga recovered the mobile phone and other articles belonging to the complainant-Neetu Pathak. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove the charges. In their 313 Statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellants as mentioned previously and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the appeals.
(3.) I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the record. Since the appellants have not opted to challenge the findings on conviction, their conviction under Section 308/394/34 IPC and conviction of the appellant- Neelu Lunga under Section 411 IPC stand affirmed.